Pitt Son & Badgery Ltd v Proulefco SA [1984] HCA 6

Pitt Son & Badgery Ltd v Proulefco SA [1984] HCA 6

The appellant breached its duty as bailee by failing to provide a reasonably secure fence to prevent intruders, an obvious and inexpensive precaution, and the resulting loss from the intruder's arson was not too remote to be recoverable.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Appeal / High Court (final Appeal)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
['negligence of Bailee' 'duty of Care' 'liability for Acts of Third Parties' 'remoteness of Damage']
['torts' 'bailment'] ['negligence of Bailee' 'duty of Care' 'liability for Acts of Third Parties' 'remoteness of Damage']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal / High Court (final Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the appellant, as bailee, breached its duty to take reasonable care of the respondent's goods" "Whether the damage caused by an intruder's arson was too remote to be recoverable"]

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant breached its duty as bailee by failing to provide a reasonably secure fence to prevent intruders, an obvious and inexpensive precaution, and the resulting loss from the intruder's arson was not too remote to be recoverable.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed with costs.']